सशस्त्र प्रहरी र भन्सार कर्मचारीमाथि आक्रमण गरेको आरोपमा २ भारतीयसहित ६ जना पक्राउ. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting one side’s perspective (usually official sources) much more fully than the other side’s, without clarifying that the information is one‑sided.

The article repeatedly presents the police narrative as the only account: - "सशस्त्र प्रहरी र भन्सार कर्मचारीमाथि आक्रमण गरेको घटनामा संलग्न दुई भारतीयसहित आधा दर्जन व्यक्तिलाई प्रहरीले पक्राउ गरेको छ ।" - "...सूचनाको आधारमा सशस्त्र प्रहरी बल ... र वीरगन्ज भन्सार कार्यालयको तथ्यांक अधिकृतसहितको संयुक्त टोलीमाथि घेरा हाली ढुंगामुढा हान्ने र सवारी साधन तोडफोड गरिएको थियो ।" - "पक्राउ परेकामाथि ज्यान मार्ने उद्योग तथा आपराधिक उपद्रवसम्बन्धी कसूरमा ... थप अनुसन्धान कार्य भइरहेको ... जानकारी दिएका छन् ।" There is no comment, denial, or alternative version from the accused, their lawyers, local residents, or independent witnesses. The article does not explicitly state that all details are based on police claims, which can make the narrative appear as established fact rather than an allegation under investigation.

3 suggestions

Explicitly attribute key factual claims to the police, e.g. "प्रहरीका अनुसार" or "प्रहरीले दाबी गरेको" before describing the alleged attack and smuggling.

Add a line noting whether attempts were made to contact the accused or their legal representatives, e.g. "पक्राउ परेकाहरू वा उनका कानुनी प्रतिनिधिहरूसँग सम्पर्क गर्न प्रयास गर्दा प्रतिक्रिया प्राप्त हुन सकेन" or include their response if available.

Clarify that the case is under investigation and allegations are not yet proven in court, e.g. "यी आरोपहरूबारे अदालतले अझै कुनै फैसला गरेको छैन".

Omission of key information

Leaving out important contextual details that would help readers fully understand the situation.

The article omits several pieces of context that would help readers assess the seriousness and nature of the incident: - No description of whether any security personnel or others were injured, or the extent of damage to vehicles. - No detail on what specific goods were allegedly smuggled, their value, or legal status. - No mention of whether the accused have prior records or if this is an isolated incident. - No explanation of the broader context of smuggling in the area (e.g., whether this is part of a larger pattern or operation). While a brief crime report does not need exhaustive detail, these omissions limit readers’ ability to gauge proportionality and significance.

4 suggestions

Add basic information on injuries and damage, if known and verified, e.g. "घटनामा कति जना घाइते भए र कति सवारी साधन क्षतिग्रस्त भए भन्नेबारे प्रहरीले यति जानकारी दिएको छ..." or explicitly state if such details are not yet available.

Specify the type and approximate value of the alleged smuggled goods, if confirmed, or clearly state that details of the goods are not yet disclosed.

Include a brief line on whether this incident is part of a broader pattern of smuggling in the region, supported by data or prior documented cases.

If information is not available, say so transparently, e.g. "यसबारे थप विवरण सार्वजनिक गरिएको छैन" instead of leaving gaps that readers might fill with assumptions.

Appeal to authority

Relying heavily on statements from authorities as if they are definitive proof, without indicating they may be partial or require verification.

The article’s core narrative is built almost entirely on police statements, especially from the police spokesperson: - "पर्सा जिल्ला अदालतबाट सात दिन म्याद थप अनुमति लिई थप अनुसन्धान कार्य भइरहेको पर्सा प्रहरी प्रवक्ता डीएसपी हरिबहादुर बस्नेतले जानकारी दिएका छन् ।" The description of the alleged attack and smuggling is presented as fact, not as claims by the police, which can implicitly encourage readers to accept the authority’s version without question.

3 suggestions

Consistently frame incident details as allegations or claims by the police, e.g. "प्रहरीको दाबी अनुसार" or "प्रहरीले आरोप लगाएको छ कि..." before describing the attack and smuggling.

Where possible, corroborate key claims with additional independent sources (e.g., court documents, local witnesses) and indicate when such corroboration is not yet available.

Add a short reminder that investigations are ongoing and facts may change as more information emerges.

Oversimplification

Presenting a complex situation in a way that omits relevant nuances, making it seem more straightforward than it is.

The article frames the situation simply as: smuggling → police/customs raid → accused attack officials. It does not explore or even briefly mention: - Possible disputes over the legality of the goods or procedures used in the raid. - Any local tensions between residents/traders and security/customs officials in the area. - Whether there were any triggers or escalation dynamics beyond a one‑sided description of an attack. This can make the event appear as a clear-cut criminal act without acknowledging that such incidents often involve procedural, economic, or social complexities.

3 suggestions

Include a brief note on whether there have been prior disputes or tensions between local traders and customs/security forces in the area, supported by previous reporting if available.

Clarify whether there are any allegations from locals about the conduct of the raid (even if unverified), and clearly label them as such.

Indicate that further details about the circumstances leading up to the confrontation are still being investigated, rather than implying the full story is already known.